• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is why the Constitution Might be Amended to ban Gay Marriage

Skeptic

Banned
S
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
18,312
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
 
Skeptic said:
would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Click to expand...

Of course it will fail. Most new amendments to the Constitution have expanded people's rights, not take rights away from them.

Am I correct in saying that the courts have consistently said that marriage is indeed a right?
 
Skeptic said:
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I know you find it absolutely horrible that yet another state will give same-sex couples the same rights as hetero couples, but you should at least get your facts straight before you start foaming at the mouth.

The Iowa Supreme Court overturned it based on the Iowa Constitution, not the Federal one.
 
Although a particular issue may be "popular" and have widespread support, sometimes that old Constitution does get in the way... There is that old "Tyranny of the Majority" idea.

In regards to marriage, it seems to me that the constitutional arguments being made are that the state cannot deny a particular class of people something that the rest have access to, especially if the denial is on the basis of already-defined criteria like "race, religion, sexual orientation..."

Although "gay marriage may be wildly unpopular in many areas, the notion that this poses some existential threat to culture, marriage, or whatever is fanciful at best. No law is going to require say, the Catholics to perform such marriages; they would be civil or take place in religious settings that were accepting.
 
Skeptic said:
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Certainly anyone who wants to deprive their fellow-citizens of their civil rights would be best advised to start by changing the Constitution. Though I note that in this particular case it is the constitution of the state of Iowa that acts as a guarantor of civil liberties. Perhaps you could figure out some way to abolish it.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public.
Click to expand...
Relax. The courts are not going to "force" gay marriage on anyone.

Of course, the courts might permit it. But anyone who doesn't wish to avail him or her self of this liberty will of course be free not to do so.
 
Skeptic said:
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Is that similar to how they "magically" found a right for interracial couples to get married?

Nothing magical about human rights. The thing about human rights (equal protection under the law, and so on) is that they apply to all humans, not just the ones you personally approve of.
 
If the roles were reversed, and only homosexuals were allowed to marry (though heterosexuals were the reproducers--let's just change one variable: the culture and not the biology for this thought experiment) what would your thoughts be?

Would heterosexual couples want the right to get married? Why? And what arguments might be used against it?

How might your reaction to such a thought experiment be used to construct an argument in favor of homosexual marriage? (we're back in real life now)
 
Alt+F4 said:
Of course it will fail. Most new amendments to the Constitution have expanded people's rights, not take rights away from them.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the only amendment to he U.S. Constitution to take away rights was Prohibition, and it was repealed by a subsequent amendment relatively quickly and generally considered to have been a big mistake and an all around failure.
 
Skeptic said:
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Click to expand...

The people can't pass unconstitutional laws. So the system is working as designed.
 
I'd like to interject my own take on the issue in general. I think the heart of the problem is really an entanglement between church & state.

I think as long as we give state recognition to religious rituals (or have ministers, priests, rabbis and such acting as agents of the state when they perform what they view as a religious rite or sacrament), there will be people who think they have the right to impose their religious view of marriage onto others.

I think the best solution would be to ban the legal recognition of church rituals. Legal marriage should be done by a matter of civil procedure (and I think the oaths and ceremony aren't necessary). You can do any marriage ritual you want in your church, but it should get no legal standing whatsoever.

There are already models of this in our society. Catholics, for example, don't recognize divorce. So if you want to dissolve a Catholic marriage, there are two parts--the legal/civil divorce and the Church's annulment. That annulment gets no legal/civil recognition at all. Also, there was a time when naming a baby was done as a religious ritual. Now we've separated the legal naming of a baby (done with documents) and church rituals like christening or baptism. The church rituals have no legal standing whatsoever, I believe.

Once these separations are made, then I don't think there will be any issue left about "defending" one's religious idea of marriage from some perceived homosexual agenda.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public.
Click to expand...

Yup... And I heard somewhere that they reserved Rush Limbaugh to be your new hubby.

At least you'll have things to talk about...
 
Things I think I think....

For many of us stinkin' commie pinko patriots, it requires no magic to find human rights. The US Constitution specifically states what rights we gave up to the government and then makes it clear that we kept any not mentioned. The basic human right to love another with openess and dignity dates from thousands of years past and not from the whims of legistlators.

Although on a much lighter note, the problem with the Iowa law was it defined marriage as being between amana and a woman and Ames objected.:D
 
iiwo said:
If the roles were reversed, and only homosexuals were allowed to marry (though heterosexuals were the reproducers--let's just change one variable: the culture and not the biology for this thought experiment) what would your thoughts be?
Click to expand...

My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
 
Skeptic said:
My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
Click to expand...

Are you ****ing serious?

This "argument" is beyond ridiculous.
 
For many of us stinkin' commie pinko patriots, it requires no magic to find human rights. The US Constitution specifically states what rights we gave up to the government and then makes it clear that we kept any not mentioned. The basic human right to love another with openess and dignity dates from thousands of years past and not from the whims of legistlators.
Click to expand...

Quite right. That's why I married my daughter. And my dog, too. So what if it's incesteous zoophilic bigamy? What's wrong with THAT?! People have been committing incest and screwing with sheep for thousands of years! No stupid legistlator is gonna tell me it's wrong! I can love anyone I want! Let freedom ring!

Please, somebody, explain to me why the very same judge who ignored the law in favor of the "higher principle" of "equal rights" would not also legalize (consensous) bigamy or incest.

Oh wait -- you don't see anything wrong with THAT, either.

Leaving this more general point aside and moving to the claim of your post, yes, it IS up to the whim of the legistlators. That's called the "rule of law".

The whole POINT of the rule of law it that it lets the people -- through their legistlature -- determine what is, or is not, legal, and limits the unelected judges to INTERPRETING the law. Even if the laws are stupid.

Once it is the judges, and not the legistlators, who make the law, you no longer have the rule of law. You have in principle -- though not in practical effect -- the same situation as in most dictatorships, where the judges simply ignore the laws they don't like and pass judgement according to "higher principles", such as the good of the Aryan race or the promotion of the interests of the working class against the evil capitalists.

You have a tyranny of the judiciary. A much more benevolent tyranny, usually, than that of the typica dictator, but a tyranny nonetheless.
 
Skeptic said:
My thought would be that it's a stupid constitution. But my thoughts won't be that that makes it constitutional.

By the way, get ready for polygamy being legalized, I guess. Nothing in the Constitution about THAT either, but that's obviously irrelevant. If gay marriage is magically found there, so is polygamy.

Of course when polygamy becomes legal, buh-bye all that annoying "women's equality" thingy, in practice at least. But that's OK, women who don't like that can use their vote and argue against legalizing polygamy...

...oh wait, they can't, since once the courts "discover" the right to polygamy, any attempt by women's groups to not be relegated to second-class level would be declared unconstitutional, and that's, well, that.
Click to expand...

I really love your posts, but this one seems to be reaching quite a long ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom